> From [log in to unmask] Wed Dec 12 13:40 MET 2001
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:40:48 +0000
> From: Rachel Heery <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: FW: Problem with our RDF schemas
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
>
> >
> > An RDF/XML for export (i.e. retrievable via an http request)
> > just should represent that "knowledge" in a RDF/XML formalized
> > fashion.
> >
> > To get that "knowledge" one doesn't need
> > the information "This is a Schema" -
> > "This is a Schema" might be useful as an ordering aid for
> > a registry - but it is not necessary to export it (my opinion).
>
> But if we accept namespace URIs do not have resolve to any content, that
> they are just identifiers, then anyone can declare a schema containing the
> DCMI terms, and that schema may or may not be correct.
There is no way to block people from making mistakes.
> I think it is
> sensible for whoever creates a schema (and exports it) to include
> administrative metadata about the schema.
Namespace URI are definitely allowed to resolve to something -
It is just that the xml-namespace rec does not enforce anything.
We are free to - and we should - use the URI in a sensible way.
>
> I am envisaging a situation where schemas are made accessible from
> different 'services'.
So it would be good for DCMI to offer at least one by itself.
Maybe we first can talk about the http redirect involved -
this puzzles me.
What is the reason for the specific redirect?
rs
|